Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 23 2018, @06:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the had-our-fingers-crossed dept.

AlterNet reports

Disney Inadvertently Exposes Trump's Tax Cut for the Scam It's Been from the Start

When Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law, he touted the legislation as a financial boon for American labor. As recently as January, Trump pointed to $1,000 bonuses for employees that American Airlines, AT&T, and Disney have announced as proof corporations would reinvest the billions of dollars they stand to save in their respective workforces. But if the president has offered a vision of how tax cuts for multinational corporations might operate in theory, an unfair labor practice complaint filed Tuesday reveals how they work in practice.

According to the Orange County Register, Unite Here Local 11, a union representing 2,700 housekeepers and other low-wage workers, has accused the Walt Disney Co. of effectively holding its bonuses hostage to secure a more favorable bargaining agreement. Disney is refusing to release the one-time payments "notwithstanding the union's lack of objection", the statement reads. "[The company] has violated its duty to bargain in good faith, and has engaged in conduct that is inherently destructive to rights guaranteed employees under the [National Labor Relations] Act." (For Disney's part, a spokeswoman maintains the company has a "strong offer on the table".)

[...] Regulatory findings released last month indicate [CEO Bob] Iger earned $36.3 million in compensation for 2017, which is $7.6 million less than he made the year before. The average union member at Disney World is paid $10.71 an hour, while just 3,000 employees earn in excess of $15. Disneyland staffers make a fraction more, the beneficiaries of California's decision last month to raise its minimum wage from $10.50 to $11 an hour. Unite Here's latest filing follows a separate complaint by a coalition of unions representing 38,000 Disney World workers in Florida.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Friday February 23 2018, @07:28PM (29 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Friday February 23 2018, @07:28PM (#642576) Journal

    Maybe it is different for some of you, but I personally will greatly benefit from the additional 2000 I will not be spending in taxes next year. Based on several of the projection websites out there as well as reading the full bill and running the numbers myself, I will be getting just about ~2k more in the 2018 tax year (not including the additional tax credits for the third kid). My wife and I make around 80k/year without taxes but due to conditions in the US right now are unable to buy a home. Evidently either you pay off your student loans as fast as possible to get a better ratio for getting a loan (what I did) or you save up a down payment (was focused on paying debt) but without doing both you are screwed and that puts a lot of my generation into their mid to late 30s before home ownership becomes an option. This 2k will be a significant benefit to me.

    Sounds to me like Disney is being the dicks that it has always been. Last I checked Trump wasn't on Disney's board of directors, but I don't tend to pay attention to Disney. Disney said they were going to do something, so Trump included them in the list of companies that said they would do something, is he now obligated to ensure that Disney follows through?

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 23 2018, @07:46PM (11 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday February 23 2018, @07:46PM (#642590)

    > This 2k will be a significant benefit to me.

    Running 1,000,000,000,000/year deficit is going to eventually hurt bigly. I guess the next D president/congress will take the blame for bringing taxes and military spending back to more reasonable levels.

    Every specialist agrees that pro-cyclical stimulus was neither needed nor wise. The Evil Leftwing MSM has done a terrible job at reminding the Republicans how much they predicted doom-by-deficits until Nov 2016.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Friday February 23 2018, @08:09PM (6 children)

      by DutchUncle (5370) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:09PM (#642599)

      >>>> . . . the next D president/congress will take the blame . . .

      which has pretty much been the playbook since I first started voting in 1976.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:44PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:44PM (#642686)

        You hit the date on the nose.
        The same ideolog who pushed the fictitious Laffer curve came up with this notion.
        The Two Santa Claus Model [wikipedia.org]
        In addition to tax-and-spend Democrats, there were now borrow-and-spend Republicans who mounted up debts and, as soon as the Ds got power, the Rs squawked about those debts (which the Rs had run up).

        Video 7:06 [youtube.com]

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @11:28PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @11:28PM (#642723)

          You mean the laffer curve which was designed to be 'progressive' and help the poor? Designed by a socialist.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:14AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:14AM (#642747)

            I'm torn whether to start by calling you a fool or calling you ignorant.
            I guess I'll just have to call you an ignorant fool.

            The Laffer Curve wasn't "designed" at all.
            It was a thought experiment, scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
            It used no database as a source of its "data points".

            Further, it only works when you start with marginal tax rates above 90 percent.
            The effect dissipates very rapidly after that.

            The slope of the curve is total nonsense.
            There has never been an example of "Trickle down" actually working.
            We have decades of evidence to the contrary.

            designed to be 'progressive' [...] Designed by a socialist

            I'm now going to go from calling you an ignorant fool to calling you a complete idiot.

            Arthur Laffer [wikipedia.org]
            School or tradition - Supply-side economics
            [...]
            gained prominence during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board

            ...and taxing Capitalists isn't a "Socialist" thing.
            Redistribution is a Liberal Democracy thing.
            N.B. Socialists want there to be no more Capitalists.
            Socialists seek a change in the ownership model WRT the means of production.

            Now, don't you feel totally foolish about giving your silly wrong-headed opinions and attempting to use words that you don't understand?

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 24 2018, @01:44AM (2 children)

              by Arik (4543) on Saturday February 24 2018, @01:44AM (#642809) Journal
              Not every swing was a total miss, well done, but I'm going to have to jump in here cause you're way too open.

              "...and taxing Capitalists isn't a "Socialist" thing.
              Redistribution is a Liberal Democracy thing."

              It's actually a both thing, to a degree, but with different justifications implying very different levels of implementation.

              Liberal democracy sanctions a relatively low level of redistribution in the name of stability, and argues that it is in the interest of those who are better off to voluntarily contribute more towards that project, as they have more to lose from instability.

              Socialism sanctions redistribution *in the name of justice* and favors levels as high as practically possible.

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:33AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:33AM (#642860)

                Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.

                If you're not describing an ownership model, you're describing *something*--but it's NOT Socialism.

                redistribution

                Now you're talking about taking stuff from Capitalists.
                Capitalism is the OPPOSITE of Socialism.

                ...and you've gone from talking about economic models to governmental models.

                You're way off the beam.

                Now, you might be trying to describe Communism, where all capital is held in the name of The Workers by The State.

                ...but that doesn't require redistribution.
                Everybody is a worker and all workers receive what they need to live.
                The Capitalist system has something similar called wages.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:54AM

                  by Arik (4543) on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:54AM (#642872) Journal
                  Umm ok. Look, at best, we're using slightly different models of what they mean by this, and both of us are right in some cases, and the game is roughly the same in either case.

                  Let's try not to let them confuses us quite so easily.
                  --
                  If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday February 23 2018, @08:20PM (2 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:20PM (#642608) Journal

      I am already not planning on their being any safety nets for my wife or I when we are old, and the whole system will come crashing down regardless. At this point it is just a race to try and get a few of the remaining fish from the pond. If anyone was serious about fixing this they would cut the military and welfare, I am a huge fan of doing both but the two party system has everyone locked in gridlock and them and their friends get more time to steal the last of the fish.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday February 23 2018, @10:50PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Friday February 23 2018, @10:50PM (#642691) Journal

        We're doing the same:
        not planning on having any help, so we'll hopefully be in alright shape, but if we get an inheritance or something? Gravy! Do some travelling maybe....or get a proper computer system, lol.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @01:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @01:37AM (#642805)

        I am already not planning on their being any safety nets for my wife or I when we are old [...] If anyone was serious about fixing this they would cut the military and welfare

        How does cutting welfare fix the lack of safety nets? Let me clarify: you might also know the safety nets by their other name -- welfare.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:08AM (#642743)

      Republicans are going to use the larger deficits as an excuse to cut programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc. while using terms like "reform" to hide what they're really doing. It's a common trick.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Friday February 23 2018, @07:52PM (4 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Friday February 23 2018, @07:52PM (#642593) Journal

    I think that you are an exception. Many people will be slightly better off, but other changes will likely take that away again. Did you factor in the loss of personal exemptions?

    I personally will be worse off under the new tax law, unless CA enacts the proposed tax credit for donations to the state (so my state income and property taxes become fully deductible charitable donations). Fortunately, I was able to pay the second half of my 2017 property taxes, which are due early 2018 and deduct this property tax payment from my 2017 income.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday February 23 2018, @08:18PM (1 child)

      by Sulla (5173) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:18PM (#642605) Journal

      Last I checked you can still deduct the first 10k of your state taxes, so depending on house size and how much property you own it might not be a factor. So for Oregon the median property tax is ~2200 and average is ~2800. Based on how the tax brackets work in order to be at 10k in income tax you need to make 105600. So if you pay the 2800 in property taxes and make less than 83k/yr then your taxes are at/under 10k.

      Quick search online shows that 29% of the population uses the schedule A on their taxes with the remaining using the 1040 or 1040ez. So 71% of people will see a reduction to their taxes, and 29% will see no change, decrease (if in a state without much taxes), or increase (in states with high state taxes).

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday February 23 2018, @10:38PM

        by NewNic (6420) on Friday February 23 2018, @10:38PM (#642680) Journal

        My typical deduction for SALT is about $18k in recent years. So, yes, it will affect me.

        --
        lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 23 2018, @11:11PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 23 2018, @11:11PM (#642708) Journal

      According to this poll [thehill.com] most Americans don't report a tax benefit.

      Just 25 percent of registered voters reported an increase in their pay, compared to 51 percent who said they did not.

      The number of employed voters who noticed an increase was higher, at 37 percent, according to the poll. Still, 53 percent said they haven't noticed an increase in their paychecks.

      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:38AM

        by Sulla (5173) on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:38AM (#642769) Journal

        Just 25 percent of registered voters reported an increase in their pay, compared to 51 percent who said they did not.

        The number of employed voters who noticed an increase was higher, at 37 percent, according to the poll. Still, 53 percent said they haven't noticed an increase in their paychecks.

        Kind of hard to have an increase in your pay if you aren't employed so the 25% number is worthless for now, especially because employment is going up and I won't even bother looking up the stats for what percentage of employers are going to give someone a raise within the first two months of being hired. So 37% of workers say they got an increase in pay and 53% notice no difference, remainder will fall into the don't know/no opinion. Of those 63% there are 7% that work for the federal/state/local governments who probably won't get a COLA until June, but contractually will get some sort of increase in 2018.

        As was said earlier on this topic, it is still pretty early to determine the exact tax ramifications of this bill and companies are working out the details. Despite uncertainty about the bill 37% have gotten raises, 7% will get raises, and 56% don't know.. Pretty damn good

        According to this poll [thehill.com] most Americans don't report a tax benefit.

        And my post was about the amount of money I won't have to spend on taxes, not the amount I am actually paid. Article you linked to seems to go the route of lower taxes = instant making more money. 1000 that you do not owe in taxes is 83/month you can reduce your withholding by, so enough to pay your insurance premium back in 2015 (89/mo) or 60% of the average car insurance (150/mo) or almost as much as the average homeowner insurance bill (90.25/mo). Looks like the average cable bill is 103 and cellphone is 110, electric is 110 and natural gas is even cheaper.

        80/month is a lot of money to some people.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Friday February 23 2018, @08:14PM (4 children)

    by DutchUncle (5370) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:14PM (#642602)

    I expect to pay *more* because of the loss of deductions, and changes in other long-standing rules that we had relied on for some financial decisions. I predict that a lot of people will have disappointing results as they calculate their taxes next year.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @11:21PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @11:21PM (#642720)

      ...and the working folks who do see some marginal improvement better enjoy it while it lasts.
      While the cuts for corporations are permanent, the "improvements" for Joe Average are temporary.

      ...and as bob_super has already noted, this giant addition to the deficit is going to hurt Joe Average.

      With the huge difference between what the imaginary economy (the stock market) is doing and what the real economy is doing (e.g. less spending on goods; production down; rinse and repeat), I'm surprised things haven't tanked already.

      Talk to your grandparents (or, if you're old enough, your parents) and get tips on living through an economic abyss.
      There is a reckoning coming.
      When there was great inequality before, that happened in The Gilded Age (The Long Depression 1873 -1896) and after The Roaring Twenties (The Great Depression).
      It's only a matter of time now.

      As Radio/TV presenter Thom Hartmann has observed, when the marginal tax rate for the super-rich goes below 50 percent [aquilafunds.com], a crash is coming.
      FDR's New Deal regulations have delayed that this time, but, with Repugs and Neoliberals whittling away at those, instability is high.

      In addition, we're seeing another rise of Fascism worldwide.
      Get ready for a replay of the 1930s.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:02AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:02AM (#642741)

        We're seeing another rise of Fascism worldwide

        Fascism in Germany only took hold because communists were attacking non-communists in the street. Saw the same thing happen here already. Nobody gave a crap or even noticed that there were still KKK or neonazis because they were so heavily monitored by the FBI, Antifa comes out and says anyone who doesn't hate Trump is a nazi/fasicst/racist/whatever and suddenly people decide that leftism has gone to far. Turns out when you force someone to either be a communist or get punched they will choose any option that isn't communism. One side argues they will give you jobs, and the other says they will take jobs from other people.

        Congrats for bringing this onto yourself. Both sides need to back down.

        From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

        Worthless thieves.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:19AM (#642752)

          Citation needed.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:59AM (#642787)

          From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

          Worthless thieves.

          "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48) [gotquestions.org] AKA The Bible

          ...and Socialists think that everyone can do -something- that is useful for society.
          ...and with as much wealth as there is on the planet, we also think that everyone who puts in a day's labor should have a reasonably adequate existence, free of artificial scarcity.
          The problem has always been *concentrations* of wealth AKA greed (1 of the 7 Deadly Sins). [bibleinfo.com]

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @08:19PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @08:19PM (#642606)

    I dunno, dude. I bought a home on $40k per year. Maybe you need to live somewhere cheaper.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Sulla on Friday February 23 2018, @08:26PM (3 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:26PM (#642615) Journal

      Can say the same for all the people in high tax states complaining about the tax cuts not helping them. Living where I currently live saves me 30k/yr on childcare so thats a big win. So currently renting to stay in same area will be cheaper than buying further away in the very short run.

      I exaggerate on the extent to which I can't buy a home. There are plenty of homes on the market but I refuse to buy a house worse than my parents or buy a house where my kids don't have their own bedrooms. In spite of the best efforts of boomers to make generations that come after them worse off than they are, I don't plan to accept that if I don't have to.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @09:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @09:20PM (#642643)

        Then maybe you should work as hard as your parents did.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 23 2018, @10:30PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 23 2018, @10:30PM (#642676)

        >I refuse to buy a house worse than my parents

        Well then, I hope you're in the minority of people who are financially better off than their parents, because on average your parents generation were better off than yours.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:05PM (#643036)

        Look into building your own - upfront costs are higher, but overall you're getting a better deal, and spending a little extra on materials will give you something that can be kept in the family for generations.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday February 23 2018, @08:20PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:20PM (#642607) Journal

    Hey Gewg_

    Why not donate your entire tax reduction to SoylentNew.org? Post back after the reduction kicks in on your 2018 income.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:06PM (#643054)

    It sure is, when they take away $2000 worth of services away from you.